FAA grounds Amazon’s drone delivery plans

The Federal Aviation Administration has said that online shopping powerhouse Amazon may not employ drones to deliver packages, at least not anytime soon.

The revelation was buried in a FAA document (PDF) unveiled Monday seeking public comment on its policy on drones, or what the agency calls "model aircraft."

The FAA has maintained since at least 2007 that the commercial operation of drones is illegal. A federal judge ruled in March, however, that the FAA enacted the regulations illegally because it did not take public input before adopting the rules, which is a violation of federal law. Flight regulators have appealed the decision, maintaining that commercial applications are still barred.

The agency has promised that it would revisit the commercial application of small drones later this year, with potential new rules in place perhaps by the end of 2015. But for now, the agency is taking a hard line against the commercial use of drones, and it's unclear whether that policy would change.

Brendan Schulman, the New York lawyer who convinced a federal judge to declare that the FAA is illegally enforcing a commercial ban on drones, lashed out at the FAA's latest attack on them. "It's a purported new legal basis telling people to stop operating model aircraft for business purposes," he said.

In Monday's announcement, published in the Federal Register, the FAA named Amazon's December proposal as an example of what is barred under regulations that allow the use of drones for hobby and recreational purposes. The agency did not mention Amazon Prime Air by name, but it didn't have to.

Under a graphic that says what is barred, the FAA mentioned the "Delivering of packages to people for a fee." A footnote added, "If an individual offers free shipping in association with a purchase or other offer, FAA would construe the shipping to be in furtherance of a business purpose, and thus, the operation would not fall within the statutory requirement of recreation or hobby purpose."

Amazon has had its fingers crossed that the agency would change course. But for now, the online shopping behemoth realizes that its delivery methods won't include drones anytime soon, despite the FAA's announcement Monday. "Putting Prime Air into commercial use will take some number of years as we advance the technology and wait for the necessary FAA rules and regulations," Amazon has said.

The FAA document, which comes amid some dangerous incidents involving ground-operated drones, contained a small laundry list of examples of what types of commercial applications are barred, including:

Determining whether crops need to be watered that are grown as part of a commercial farming operation

A person photographing a property or event and selling the photos to someone else

A realtor using a model aircraft to photograph a property that he is trying to sell and using the photos in the property's real estate listing

Well, I didn't want to guess at bureaucratic motives, but it does smack a bit of "that which is not explicitly allowed is forbidden." And I don't think the FAA has had time to react to drones as a regulatory agency.

Probably all of the above. The previous model was that you have big airlines and individual licensed, trained pilots in the skies, in craft which the air traffic control system is designed to detect and interact with. And then a handful of hobbyists flying model planes, usually at lower altitudes and on limited occasions.

Now we'll be moving to remote-controlled, possibly autonomous, vehicles being deployed ubiquitously and with few controls for the safety of bystanders.

Most likely, we'll need to see safer models (e.g. no exposed blades or some kind of safety function that prevents them slicing someone up), some form of standardized transponders and a dedicated human contact that air traffic controllers can get hold of if necessary... just as some ideas.

The only thing that concerns me about drones is their potential use in bombing. Other than that, I am far more worried about getting hit by cars...

Seriously though, if I can build a helicopter in my backyard and fly it about, why are we worried about drones? People have been flying these things for decades.

Because thats precisely in your back yard. A very small area at a very small altitude - within the 10's of feet.

We're looking at the potential of a drone traffic explosion. A lot of aircraft in low airspace with limited ability to spot and avoid each other if the operator is some distance away from operation.

If Amazon recon they can do drone deliveries, we're going to get news reporters doing Robo-Photographers in low space. drone-Billboards at high-foot-traffic events, robo cameras (some cities already use cars with CCTV to enforce parking... Good job for a drone?...

Before the explosion can be allowed to happen, we have to solve the problems it will bring first. How are we going to deal with all of this potential traffic, safely?

Thats why the regulation isnt against backyard enthusiasts, its about the commercial use, which has the potential to get big, quick. Its the quanitiy of traffic they're worried about.

Determining whether crops need to be watered that are grown as part of a commercial farming operation

Really, this is forbidden? I understand forbidding drones in populated areas, or national parks (you get great pictures, the other people at the park get to hear a constant buzz instead of the peacefulness of a national park), but using drones in a farm looks like a great way to better use our water resources.

I have to imagine there is some interest that has the FAA by the short and curlies that benefits from blocking commercial drone use.

Possibly the FAA would benefit in the way that, they won't have to deal with drones at all. I'm thinking they just don't know enough of the technology, and just don't want to deal with having to fund a whole drone department of the FAA.

At this point it's most likely a combination of safety and institutional inertia. To drive on public roads, your car needs to meet certain minimum safety requirements (like working brakes, brake lights, and non-worn tires), and as an operator you need to obtain a license demonstrating a certain amount of proficiency and understanding of law. Given that UASs can be pretty large (we aren't just talking about 1lb drones), it seems reasonable that similar UAS and pilot regulations should exist. The problem at this point is that the FAA doesn't make rules quickly, and the current FAA regs apply to much larger equipment that can carry at least the pilot in the air, so they're probably too strict to be directly applied.

I can't think of any rational argument that applies only to commercial use. The arguments against small remote control flyers would all seem to me to apply to recreational and hobby use as much as commercial. But since people have been flying them forever as a hobby it's a bit hard for the FAA to come out and belatedly ban such usage.

Thank you Glitchc, that is exactly the primary point that needs to be made clear. The risk to collision in a system designed for manned aviation is of prime importance to the FAA and associated interests such as AOPA on behalf of general aviation and A4A on behalf of air carriers. I have more thoughts on this, but I'll offer them later on a full keyboard.

Its hard for me to believe that safety plays a major role, when I can design, construct, and fly an aircraft weighing less than 154 lbs without inspection, license or training. In fact, my first aircraft was a powered parachute made from a Kawasaki snowmobile engine, some aluminum tubes, and a tandem skydiving chute.

I can fly the plane. That's legal, says the FAA. I can take pictures from the plane, talk on the phone from the plane, sing and dance in the plane (well, if it had a floor and if I wasn't using my feet to steer). That's all legal.

However, if I try to sell one of my pictures, that makes it a illegal commercial activity. If I even use my plane in a search and rescue, the FAA considers THAT illegal commercial activity.

This does not make one helluva a lot of sense.

And the same rules apply to my manned ultralight aircraft as apply to your Estes micro-drone hovering at 40'.

Determining whether crops need to be watered that are grown as part of a commercial farming operation

Really, this is forbidden? I understand forbidding drones in populated areas, or national parks (you get great pictures, the other people at the park get to hear a constant buzz instead of the peacefulness of a national park), but using drones in a farm looks like a great way to better use our water resources.

I agree this could be very critical use in drought areas where every last drop of water counts, the FAA seem to be operating at whole other level of stupid.

Last I checked the government uses drones for similar reasons, maybe they should have to stop to.

The only thing that concerns me about drones is their potential use in bombing. Other than that, I am far more worried about getting hit by cars...

Can't "they" use cars/trucks/vans for bombs too?

Sure, but locating the operator of a car or truck is pretty easy, and they're pretty well confined to driveable surfaces. The scary thing about drones is the potential for the operator to remain unknown while he flies it right up to a VIP standing at a podium giving a speech.

Not that banning commercial use of drones does much of anything to stop that, but still. It's an unpleasant thought.

We're looking at the potential of a drone traffic explosion. A lot of aircraft in low airspace with limited ability to spot and avoid each other if the operator is some distance away from operation.

The rules can be put in place where there is a minimum 20 feet hard deck unless taking off or landing and a max of 200 feet ceiling with exceptions for any Class B-D controlled airspace where licensed aircraft are taking off or landing. Short of exceptions for Class E, the remaining airspace should be treated as Class G and the risks involved with it.

If Amazon recon they can do drone deliveries, we're going to get news reporters doing Robo-Photographers in low space. drone-Billboards at high-foot-traffic events, robo cameras (some cities already use cars with CCTV to enforce parking... Good job for a drone?...

I think someone already forgets that we're already in a surveillance state. Everyone has a camera on their phone. If anything, one should encourage this technology as it will lead to greater leaps in battery, geolocation and wireless power technologies.

Its hard for me to believe that safety plays a major role, when I can design, construct, and fly an aircraft weighing less than 154 lbs without inspection, license or training. In fact, my first aircraft was a powered parachute made from a Kawasaki snowmobile engine, some aluminum tubes, and a tandem skydiving chute.

I can fly the plane. That's legal, says the FAA.

In Class G airspace perhaps. Now try and fly it in Class D or greater without a Radio license and without recieving an air traffic control service.

[quote="[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=27095211#p27095211]jfalcon[/urlI think someone already forgets that we're already in a surveillance state. Everyone has a camera on their phone. If anything, one should encourage this technology as it will lead to greater leaps in battery, geolocation and wireless power technologies.[/quote]Quite the opposite, I recognise it, and recognise the groudn for expansion in more devices in crowded space at low altitude.

David Kravets / The senior editor for Ars Technica. Founder of TYDN fake news site. Technologist. Political scientist. Humorist. Dad of two boys. Been doing journalism for so long I remember manual typewriters with real paper.